INSITE RULING WISE COURSE

It is refreshing to hear from Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq
that her government not only will comply with the Supreme Court
ruling regarding Vancouver's safe injection site, but she will read it.

Now, if only she can just get her colleagues also to tap into the
words of wisdom that came unanimously from all nine top justices of Canada.

In essence, the decision confirms Ottawa's right to establish
criminal prohibitions on the possession and trafficking of drugs as
something that can't be simply overruled by a province's
responsibility to establish health policy. However, the court
suggests that doesn't allow the federal government to institute
ideologically-driven policies that deprive individuals of their
charter protection of life and security of person, and denies them
fundamental justice.

The federal government couldn't but have been aware of the benefits
Insite provides to the drug addicts of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
and to society as a whole. Although Insite is the first legal,
government-sanctioned and funded supervised injection site in North
America, it is one of about 70 around the world, including in Europe
and Australia.

It came into existence only after extensive research indicated it
would provide the kinds of benefits it has done for society. And
since opening its doors it has been the subject of numerous, rigorous
scientific studies -- many of which were published in prestigious
peer-reviewed journals -- that found it saved lives, reduced crime,
decreased the level of drug abuse and protected public health.

All of these benefits fit within the stated goals of the Conservative
government's "tough on crime" agenda.

But for ideological reasons, the Stephen Harper government persisted
in opposing Insite's operation, going so far as to deny it the
exemption from the Criminal Code it required to have health
professions overseeing the administration of illegal drugs. As the
Supreme Court noted, had it not been for an interim order by a
lower-court judge, the health and lives of injection drug users would
have been threatened. "Based on the information available to the
minister, this limit (on their charter rights) is not in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice," Chief Justice Beverley
McLachlin wrote on behalf of her colleagues.

She also advised the federal government that in the future it must
strike an appropriate balance between achieving public health and
public safety. That is to say, rather than rely on gut feelings or
blind ideology to set public policy, the government must consider
measures that reduce risks to the health and lives of individuals as
well as measures that protect public safety.

This ruling could have far reaching implications for other
jurisdictions considering similar harm-reduction strategies.

"Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk
of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will
have a negative impact on public safety, the minister should
generally grant an exemption," Justice McLachlin wrote.

It shouldn't have taken an edict from the Supreme Court to force the
federal government to adopt this strategy. Canadians should be able
to trust that governments of any political stripe would set aside
narrow ideology for policies that are proven to be in the best
interest of the country.

While this ruling was specific to British Columbia's drug harm
reduction policy, one suspects those who argue that Canada's war on
drugs or tough-on-crime strategy do more harm than good will also be
reading Friday's ruling with care.